Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Grist for the Mill

I don't agree with everything that is included in this essay from Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz, but there's a lot of good stuff here. We could pick at this one all day, but here are two relevant arguments:

The apparent sincere belief by many on the left that the wide spread Tea Party members are evil, violent people springs precisely from decades of indoctrination in which leftists are progressively trained to view their fellow Americans as evil, dangerous people from whom the benevolent state must protect them. They are especially trained to view white business people as evil. When they see a collection of white, small-to-medium-sized business-owners/self-employed, they automatically see a group of evil and dangerous people. They can’t help it. This is all they’ve been taught and all they say to each other.

I wish that were an oversimplification, but I've heard such things too often to dismiss the thought out of hand. Then there's this, from the comment section:

The Assistant Village Idiot observed that Democratic candidates tend to say, “I’ll fight for you,” whereas Republican candidates tend to say, “I’ll work for you.”

I've noticed that, too. Read the whole thing. And a tip of the top hat to Picklesworth, who linked this article on Facebook.


Anonymous said...

Isn't sterotyping and bigotry supposed to wrong? I guess that only applies if you can use these for your benefit.

my name is Amanda said...

Blaming indoctrination is just a way to attempt to negate the other person's viewpoint. Not that any Liberal's POV is being accurately reflected in that description.

I've never heard the comparison between campaign promises, but if I had to guess, the reason isn't as nefarious as is being insinuated. The Left represents Liberals, yes, but it is also the party of those who would be disenfranchised, if they, or their elected leaders did not fight for those rights. Examples include immigration rights, gay rights, civil rights for women and POC - people who by either overt disenfranchisement (preventing poor people from voting) or simply lack of privilege (in terms of race/sex/income, ie. white male privilege) would not have a voice, or as much of a voice.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Are you disenfranchised and voiceless because someone prevents you from voting and speaking? Or are you applying a different standard?

Because I'm not aware of a whole lot of gender/race/income prohibitions on voting these days. And I'm not aware of a whole lot of prohibitions on speaking your mind either. If the street corner isn't good enough, you can always start a blog. Don't have a computer? Go to the library.

"Privilege" is leftist code for "I want to discriminate against a class of people, but can't actually justify it with a valid argument."